pat Robertson said

#26
#26
All I'm saying is that there would still need to be laws in place to regulate weed similar to alcohol if it were legalized.
 
#27
#27
VolinMichigan said:
All I'm saying is that there would still need to be laws in place to regulate weed similar to alcohol if it were legalized.
Click to expand...
Of course there should be regulation laws similar to booze. I don't think anyone who is for the legalization is saying otherwise.
 
#29
#29
T-TownVol said:
I agree, and it should be held to the same laws as alcohol as to driving and being in public.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Although I think there can be a case made that marijuana is the least harmful when compared against tobacco and alcohol.
 
#34
#34
BearCat204 said:
100% agree............are we arguing a point here?
Click to expand...

Just wish he'd go all in... the war on drugs is a waste of time, money and resources... why stop at supporting legalizing weed... he should have said any naturally occurring controlled substance. Guess it's just baby steps.

I don't even like Pat, but I know a lot of older people listen to him... and they vote... won't do a damn bit of good though.
 
#35
#35
BearCat204 said:
Whats to stop a person who pops a couple of prescribes lortabs from getting behind the wheel......we should make prescribed lortab illegal. Seriously, with this way of thinking, how could you even start to think that beer should be legal?

And trust me, when I get high, the last thing in the world I want to do is to get off the coach and go somewhere. Much different from when I have been slamming shots all night and want to go out.
Click to expand...


How often do you two light up?
 
#36
#36
There is no reason to have intoxicated driving laws. The reasoning behind them is the same reasoning that leads leftys to want to make guns illegal. Potential.

The better approach is to punish people who hurt other people. Harshly.

If you get high and drive to your girlfriend's house and no one is harmed along the way, then there is no reason to punish you. The only valid crimes are crimes that have a victim. Drinking and driving does not have victims. Running over someone with your car has a victim, whether you are drunk or not.
 
#37
#37
RespectTradition said:
There is no reason to have intoxicated driving laws. The reasoning behind them is the same reasoning that leads leftys to want to make guns illegal. Potential.

The better approach is to punish people who hurt other people. Harshly.

If you get high and drive to your girlfriend's house and no one is harmed along the way, then there is no reason to punish you. The only valid crimes are crimes that have a victim. Drinking and driving does not have victims. Running over someone with your car has a victim, whether you are drunk or not.
Click to expand...

I understand this reasoning and logically agree with it, however, don't you think drunk driving laws are a deterrent and have actually saved lives? They make most people look for alternative transportation or to stay put than risk jail. You'll always have your hardcores that will drive regardless.
 
#39
#39
RespectTradition said:
There is no reason to have intoxicated driving laws. The reasoning behind them is the same reasoning that leads leftys to want to make guns illegal. Potential.

The better approach is to punish people who hurt other people. Harshly.

If you get high and drive to your girlfriend's house and no one is harmed along the way, then there is no reason to punish you. The only valid crimes are crimes that have a victim. Drinking and driving does not have victims. Running over someone with your car has a victim, whether you are drunk or not.
Click to expand...
Interesting opinion..............I completely disagree
 
#40
#40
RespectTradition said:
There is no reason to have intoxicated driving laws. The reasoning behind them is the same reasoning that leads leftys to want to make guns illegal. Potential.

The better approach is to punish people who hurt other people. Harshly.

If you get high and drive to your girlfriend's house and no one is harmed along the way, then there is no reason to punish you. The only valid crimes are crimes that have a victim. Drinking and driving does not have victims. Running over someone with your car has a victim, whether you are drunk or not.
Click to expand...

Potential leads "leftys" to make guns illegal?

What the hell are you talking about?


If you are a distracted driver then you are open to any laws that you are disobeying.

Contrary to popular belief, I think that meds, texting, alcohol, and/or illegal drugs tend to distract a person from time to time while behind the wheel.
 
#43
#43
RespectTradition said:
There is no reason to have intoxicated driving laws. The reasoning behind them is the same reasoning that leads leftys to want to make guns illegal. Potential.

The better approach is to punish people who hurt other people. Harshly.

If you get high and drive to your girlfriend's house and no one is harmed along the way, then there is no reason to punish you. The only valid crimes are crimes that have a victim. Drinking and driving does not have victims. Running over someone with your car has a victim, whether you are drunk or not.
Click to expand...

I agree. The way the laws are written is problematic, IMO. Basically distracted driving is legal, as long as the specific type of distraction isn't banned. Somebody who hits and kills somebody while putting on make-up is treated differently than somebody who hits and kills somebody while driving drunk. In both cases carelessness resulted in a death, but the law only cares about one type of carelessness.

If we harshly punished all reckless driving, that would encompass irresponsible cell phone usage, and drunk driving. We don't need a law specifically against drunk driving.
 
#44
#44
trevols81 said:
Potential leads "leftys" to make guns illegal?

What the hell are you talking about?


If you are a distracted driver then you are open to any laws that you are disobeying.

Contrary to popular belief, I think that meds, texting, alcohol, and/or illegal drugs tend to distract a person from time to time while behind the wheel.
Click to expand...

Most gun control advocates are on the political left.

Most gun control advocates want guns limited because they might be used to harm someone, either intentionally or accidentally.

Limiting access to guns because they might be used to harm someone is limiting access to guns because they have the potential to harm someone.

Put it all together and you get:

The reasoning behind them is the same reasoning that leads leftys to want to make guns illegal. Potential.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought it was self-explanatory.
 
#46
#46
RespectTradition said:
There is no reason to have intoxicated driving laws. The reasoning behind them is the same reasoning that leads leftys to want to make guns illegal. Potential.

The better approach is to punish people who hurt other people. Harshly.

If you get high and drive to your girlfriend's house and no one is harmed along the way, then there is no reason to punish you. The only valid crimes are crimes that have a victim. Drinking and driving does not have victims. Running over someone with your car has a victim, whether you are drunk or not.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree. I think public safety requires certain restrictions based on a risk assessment. We put stop signs up at certain intersections based on a predictable risk. If you run that stop sign you get a fine and potential raise on insurance rates, even if you haven't harmed anyone. I think DUIs should fall under the same category with the only difference being the chance to sleep it off in a safe, secure environment.
 
#47
#47
YorkVol said:
I agree and disagree. I think public safety requires certain restrictions based on a risk assessment. We put stop signs up at certain intersections based on a predictable risk. If you run that stop sign you get a fine and potential raise on insurance rates, even if you haven't harmed anyone. I think DUIs should fall under the same category with the only difference being the chance to sleep it off in a safe, secure environment.
Click to expand...

I usually question the necessity of everything, and I never thought to question the need for traffic signals. These Brits removed all traffic signals, and I'm blown away by the results.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU[/youtube]
 
#48
#48
nbakerld said:
I usually question the necessity of everything, and I never thought to question the need for traffic signals. These Brits removed all traffic signals, and I'm blown away by the results.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU[/youtube]
Click to expand...

The problem with the video is that those people have been raised in a culture which has rules and regulations. Those rules and regulations have been ingrained into their subconscious minds to the point that it doesn't matter if those stop signs or stop lights are absent. Living in a country where there has not been road rules or laws for almost 40 years, I can assure you that the result is quite different when citizens haven't been brainwashed with the aforementioned traffic laws.
 
#49
#49
Wait, wait, wait... some people in here actually think marijuana should be legal, but being high in public should be prohibited?

Driving, I guess I can see where some people are coming from... but what in the hell is wrong with being stoned and taking a stroll through Market Square on a nice day?

I would really like to hear any kind of reasoning behind that.
 
#50
#50
PKT_VOL said:
The problem with the video is that those people have been raised in a culture which has rules and regulations. Those rules and regulations have been ingrained into their subconscious minds to the point that it doesn't matter if those stop signs or stop lights are absent. Living in a country where there has not been road rules or laws for almost 40 years, I can assure you that the result is quite different when citizens haven't been brainwashed with the aforementioned traffic laws.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. Even those developing nations where they have traffic lights, the informal rules outweigh everything. For example, wheel placement in Korea, eye contact in the Philippines, turn signals in Thailand etc often mean more than the traffic lights and signs.

Your point is also applicable to the OP, historic "information" has us brainwashed to the point where we accept spending billions of dollars fighting something that shouldn't be a crime and a large part of our population has no problem equating smoking pot with robbery or assault, at least as far as the judicial consequences are concerned.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top